Canterbury v Tasman
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="crusadersfan" data-cid="610051" data-time="1472356816">
<div>
<p>Thanks Stargazer much appreciated.</p>
<p>How are we playing overall?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Canterbury clearly dominating the game; Ta$man defending well though, otherwise the score would have been much higher.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>That new Canterbury player Nathan Earl is an interesting player with potential.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Goodhue just scored the bonus point try for Canterbury. After conversion, it's now 38-14.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Oh, and if McNicholl wasn't going overseas, he would have been higher up the AB wannabe-queque than James Lowe.</p> -
<p>That was a great intercept from Jordie Barrett, leading to an excellent try by Canterbury's no. 22 (Finau?).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Full time: Canterbury 45 - 14 Ta$man.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>5 tries to 1</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Canterbury well-deserved winners. Ta$man not bad; not sure when exactly it went wrong, but I suspect bringing on bench players played a role in the big defeat.</p> -
<p> Ta$man virtually no ball or field position in the second half.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Biggest difference between the two teams was probably Big Bird (assisted by Scott Barrett and Luke Whitelock). I think we might have won one lineout. Scrum was under severe pressure at times, though markedly improved when Kane Hames came on. I think a lot from the power that was coming from behind the front rows.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Hard to see who's going to beat Canterbury this season. Most teams simply aren't going to have size to compete with their forwards. They've dismissed Auckland and Ta$man with ease.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="610062" data-time="1472357968">
<div>
<p> Ta$man not bad; not sure when exactly it went wrong, but I suspect bringing on bench players played a role in the big defeat.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Not being able to win any ball was a bit of a problem. :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Frizell getting injured early was pretty much the end of the Ta$man lineout. He's a lock loosie, so at least provided good potential as the third lineout forward. Once he was gone, Bird and Barrett (and Whitelock) was a complete mismatch on Strange and Lepa.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Princep coming on for Geldenhuys was under a lot of pressure at tighthead from Lienert-Brown - otherwise most of the replacements were OK. Hames an obvious upgrade and Makalio probably an improvement on McDonald.</p> -
<p>Geez Luke Romano has put on a lot of bulk looking at him live. Suprised he can move. Ta$man looked ok out wide but were badly beaten up front. Rob Thompson and Nathan Earle looked very good for the cantabs as well as their pack. I can see where SammyC is coming from in terms of Scott Barretts size as he is quite small for a lock. Looks bigger on tv than he does in person.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Sadly I can't see anyone other than Canterbury winning yet another title. Just give it to them now I say lol.</p> -
<p>Romano seems to almost be on the outer now. Didn't get many starts for the Crusaders and now struggling to get a start for Canterbury.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NZ Rugby Quizzes" data-cid="610110" data-time="1472363965">
<div>
<p>Romano seems to almost be on the outer now. Didn't get many starts for the Crusaders and now struggling to get a start for Canterbury.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I think Robertson perhaps more just keeping him warm for the ABs and bedding in the guys who are going to carry his season.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="610111" data-time="1472364098">
<div>
<p>I think Robertson perhaps more just keeping him warm for the ABs and bedding in the guys who are going to carry his season.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Possibly but barely started in Super, S. Barrett pretty much preferred for most of the season. Not a stretch to say Bird and S. Barrett better than Romano right now.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NZ Rugby Quizzes" data-cid="610121" data-time="1472365354">
<div>
<p>Possibly but barely started in Super, S. Barrett pretty much preferred for most of the season. Not a stretch to say Bird and S. Barrett better than Romano right now.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Not sure about that - I think Toddy did a fair bit of mixing it up - including with Sam Whitelock missing a few starts. Romano certainly started in the QF loss to the Lions because he missed a tackle in one of the quick tries at the beginning. :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Romano is really a heavy tighthead lock to Barrett's lightweight loosehead.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm pretty much in Sammy's camp that Barrett's going to be too small to be an international lock. Bird will certainly push Romano, though. One of Toddy's less impressive selections - losing Bird to the Chiefs and retaining Barrett and Jimmy Tupou.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="610126" data-time="1472366104">
<div>
<p>Not sure about that - I think Toddy did a fair bit of mixing it up - including with Sam Whitelock missing a few starts. Romano certainly started in the QF loss to the Lions because he missed a tackle in one of the quick tries at the beginning. :)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Romano is really a heavy tighthead lock to Barrett's lightweight loosehead.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'm pretty much in Sammy's camp that Barrett's going to be too small to be an international lock. Bird will certainly push Romano, though. One of Toddy's less impressive selections - <strong>losing Bird to the Chiefs and retaining Barrett and Jimmy Tupou.</strong></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Bird was a damp squib at the Crusaders - it wasn't working, so him moving on was best for both parties, now he just needs to move on from Canterbury back home and all will be good.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="610128" data-time="1472366366">
<div>
<p>Bird was a damp squib at the Crusaders - it wasn't working, so him moving on was best for both parties, now he just needs to move on from Canterbury back home and all will be good.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Exactly, the guy played like a big girl at the Crusaders and moving was the best ting for his career. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Nepia" data-cid="610128" data-time="1472366366">
<div>
<p>Bird was a damp squib at the Crusaders - it wasn't working, so him moving on was best for both parties, now he just needs to move on from Canterbury back home and all will be good.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Hard to tell last year - Toddy wouldn't pick him after the first few games. He was certainly good for Canterbury - wasn't he ITM Cup player of the year?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Agree - there needs to be a re-jigging of locks to return to their home province. Chiefs can start by handing Retallick back to the Crusaders.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Due to length of service I will grant Sam Whitelock an amnesty from Palmerston North - poor bastard doubtless suffered enough in his childhood!
</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="610156" data-time="1472368647">
<div>
<p>Hard to tell last year - Toddy wouldn't pick him after the first few games. He was certainly good for Canterbury - wasn't he ITM Cup player of the year?</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Agree - there needs to be a re-jigging of locks to return to their home province. Chiefs can start by handing Retallick back to the Crusaders.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Due to length of service I will grant Sam Whitelock an amnesty from Palmerston North - poor bastard doubtless suffered enough in his childhood! :)</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Retallick calls the Bay home now, he remembers the shoddy treatment he received from the Crusaders (and his HB missus made him return to the Pies)!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Whitelocks are from a farm near Fielding I thought - but your final comment probably holds true no matter what the distinction.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>* Actually in your re-jig Bird would wind up at the Canes.</p> -
<p>Signing Bird instead of Retallick was ultimately Toddy's worst mistake. In the ultimate irony, the Chiefs have ended up with both of them now that they're good.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>I'd put a smiley face there, but...Jesus Christ..we coulda had Whitelock and Retallick...and a couple of championships with that combo. :(</p>
<p> </p>
<p>On the plus side, with my re-jig, the Mako$ can have Romano (born in Nelson) - which is handy, because he's someone we would likely get to use.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="610068" data-time="1472359131"><p>Not being able to win any ball was a bit of a problem. :)<br><br>
Frizell getting injured early was pretty much the end of the Ta$man lineout. He's a lock loosie, so at least provided good potential as the third lineout forward. Once he was gone, Bird and Barrett (and Whitelock) was a complete mismatch on Strange and Lepa.<br><br>
Princep coming on for Geldenhuys was under a lot of pressure at tighthead from Lienert-Brown - otherwise most of the replacements were OK. Hames an obvious upgrade and Makalio probably an improvement on McDonald.</p></blockquote>
Geldenhuys had been under pressure from the very first scrum when Hodgman started. By the time Leniert-Brown came on it was more or less game over. The Canterbury Pack was just too strong including the bench players, a complete performance from the forwards.<br><br>
Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="NZ Rugby Quizzes" data-cid="610121" data-time="1472365354">
<div>
<p>Possibly but barely started in Super, S. Barrett pretty much preferred for most of the season. Not a stretch to say Bird and S. Barrett better than Romano right now.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Don't have the stats in front of me but my understanding was that Whitelock, Barrett and Romano played approximately equal minutes during Super Rugby. There was a discussion late in the season on another Rugby forum about Romano's minutes, and someone posted up their playing time which was almost equal.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="fiamacho" data-cid="610172" data-time="1472369879">
<div>
<p>Geldenhuys had been under pressure from the very first scrum when Hodgman started. By the time Leniert-Brown came on it was more or less game over. The Canterbury Pack was just too strong including the bench players, a complete performance from the forwards.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Can't argue too much with that - though there's no doubt that Hodgman was seriously boring in on Geldenhuys in a couple of scrums in the first half. Kees Meeuws pointed that out when Hames got penalized for the same in the second half. Hames was actually too effective in his cheating. The other factor was, due to Canterbury's enormous dominance of possession, most of the put-ins were by Ta$man - giving Canterbury the advantage to attack (not having to hook).</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Without injuries, Ta$man can probably fix these scrum problems for a rematch with Canterbury - because Hames and Halanukonuka would be our first choice props, backed by Perry and Geldenhuys - leaving Princep out of the equation. Alex Ainley would provide more tighthead lock power.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Fixing the lineout is a lot more problematic - even with Frizell, Dominic Bird is going to get pretty much a free jump.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="610165" data-time="1472369328">
<div>
<p>Signing Bird instead of Retallick was ultimately Toddy's worst mistake.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Tom Coventry was the coach who was instrumental in signing Retallick and luring him north. But your point remains. :)</p>
